Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 26 Jan 2022

Nitrates Action Programme: Discussion (Resumed)

We have not received any apologies. One or two members have said they will be joining us later. I remind members, witnesses and those in the public gallery to turn off their mobile phones. I welcome the Association of Farm and Forestry Contractors in Ireland, FCI, and thank them for coming before the committee today to engage with us on the nitrates action programme, NAP, and the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS.

In regard to Covid-19, with effect from 25 January 2022 members and witnesses have the option of attending committee meetings in the relevant committee room rather than participating via MS Teams. Masks should continue to be worn by those present when not addressing the committee. Room capacity will continue to be reduced in the short term until all microphones and seating can be returned.

Witnesses giving evidence within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that a witness has full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as far as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third party or entity. Witnesses who are to give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on the matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matter arising from the proceedings.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or any official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to the utterances of members participating online in a committee meeting when their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. There can be no assurance in relation to participation online from outside the parliamentary precincts, and members should be mindful of this when they are contributing.

Today's witnesses are Mr. John Hughes, national chairman; Mr. Richard White, national secretary; and Mr. Michael Moroney, chief executive officer. I invite them to make their opening statement.

Mr. John Hughes

I welcome the opportunity to participate at the proceedings and I thank the committee for the invitation. I hope to meet them at further, future meetings. Today we will discuss the issues at hand in regard to the farm contractors and recognition of farm contractors in Ireland. We do not seem to get the recognition we would like from State bodies, that is, the Departments of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and Finance regarding proposals we put forward to them. We look forward to members' questions after our presentation. I will pass over to Mr. Moroney now.

Mr. Michael Moroney

I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it this evening. I will give a summary of our opening statement.

First, what is a land-based contractor? The Association of Farm and Forestry Contractors in Ireland, FCI, land-based farm and forestry contractors are professional sole traders and companies working on behalf of third-party farmers to provide services for arable crops, livestock, forestry and local authority green spaces. They provide agricultural, forestry and landscape mechanisation services employing skilled operators, using the state-of-the-art and modern equipment in a sustainable way for financial reward. Their machinery investment delivers economies of scale for farming, providing practical and sustainable efficiencies to support farmers and the Irish food industry as a world leading, competitive quality food producer.

Farm and forestry contractors provide the bulk of mechanisation services to the Irish farming, accounting for a contracting sector turnover of more than €700 million. Our members play an important role in providing cost-effective and efficient services to Irish farmers and forest owners and support Ireland’s position as a world leader in the production and marketing of low-carbon, high-quality, sustainable and traceable food and wood products in a clean environment.

In practical and measurable terms, the 1,000 farm and forestry contractors now listed on our database each work across an average of three farms per day. This amounts to about 18,000 interactions each week of the working season. Given a working season of about 30 weeks, that equates to about half a million interactions between farmers and their contractors in Ireland each year. That, in a sense, explains just how connected our FCI members are to Irish agriculture. Policymakers need to be aware that without the essential input of farm and forestry contractors, the Irish agrifood and forest production systems would simply not exist.

Farm and forestry contractors employ more than 10,000 people in Ireland in rural areas, operating high-technology and agricultural-specific machines. These machines consume more than 350 million l of agricultural diesel annually, which is about 62% of all agricultural diesel consumed in Ireland. They do that across a fleet of about 25,000 tractors and an additional 5,000 power machines.

Just to put it into context, contractor machines harvest over 90% of the national grass and maize silage crops and manage the handling and spreading of over 50% of animal manures produced on livestock farms. In forestry, their machines prepare lands for planting, construct the forest roads and harvest the nation's entire timber crop. Farm contractors are the dominant providers of slurry spreading machinery systems and their equipment applies the bulk of the 40 million tonnes of animal manures produced annually on Irish farms.

Since the low-emission slurry spreading, LESS, grants were made available, more than 8,000 machine grant applications have been paid out, which equates to more than €55 million paid to farmers for 20% of the potential work output, while contractors, doing most of this work, have been specifically excluded from the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, grants. Despite this, Teagasc research has shown in 2020 that only 3% of slurry is spread through LESS systems. We accept that this has increased significantly since then.

We are aware from the capital-intensive investments now being made by our FCI members in new tractors and equipment systems that digitalisation is creating unprecedented amounts of data. Our members believe that technological innovation and precision agriculture have the potential to improve the productivity, quality, traceability and sustainability of the Irish agrifood system. Our members are already using machines fitted with such technology, including big data and machine learning systems that can bring about fundamental shifts to dramatically alter how we produce food products on Irish farms and how we manage organic waste in a sustainable way. This now provides opportunities for the further development of shared data-driven decision-making on Irish farms and in Irish forests that can only be commercially viable and sustainable through collaboration and the economies of scale provided by farm and forestry contractors. With supported investment in new technology, training and data exchange systems for FCI registered contractors, these technologies can advance circular agriculture through a cost-effective and fairer agriculture transition to a low-carbon farm economy. Farm and forestry contractors must be supported to purchase this appropriate equipment, as proposed in the nitrates action programme, NAP, first stage consultation.

From a climate action perspective, it is clearly more environmentally efficient for several farmers to utilise the services and equipment of a single farm contractor, rather than each individual farmer owning and utilising their own equipment. By purchasing a new tractor or machine grant-aided, supported by the TAMS scheme, overnight a farmer can become a farm contractor, with no registration or affiliation requirement. In doing so, they undermine the cost structure of existing farm contractors who are providing local skilled employment with proper insurance cover. A farm contractor cannot easily become a farmer.

Support for farm contractors to invest at a more rapid pace in newer machinery systems that can guarantee greater accuracy of application of animal and chemical fertilisers, as well as more traceability of the animal food production process and enhanced forest management needs to be examined to demonstrate to customers of Irish food and timber products the seriousness with which we as a nation take on the lower carbon and water quality challenges and as we pursue the transition to a more sustainable and fairer food and timber production system.

The FCI believes that the Departments of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and Agriculture, Food and the Marine should use the NAP and TAMS, respectively, while working with farm and forestry contractors as the dominant on-farm service providers, to improve environmental outcomes on Irish farms and in forests in line with Ireland’s national environmental objectives. Farm and forestry contractors want to take a lead part by providing solutions. This contractor input needs, first of all, to be acknowledged, and then supported. FCI members have always been early adopters and facilitators in the delivery of scientific research and the best farm practices at farm level. Farm and forestry contractors have a track record of working in partnership with generations of Irish farmer clients and advisers. Together we all now strive to achieve new national climate and water quality goals. It is therefore essential that the viability and well-being of farm and forestry contractors are addressed in all future farming and forest strategy programmes.

This is why we must repeat the message that without the essential input of farm and forestry contractors, sustainable Irish agrifood and forest production systems simply cannot exist. The farm and forestry contractor input needs to be acknowledged again and supported.

I will deal with some of the key points in terms of in terms of some of the schemes. In the slurry management area, the association is aware that the nitrates action programme contains the mandatory measures required of all EU member states by the nitrates directive, including closed periods that prohibit the spreading of fertilisers, limits on the amount of livestock manures that may be land-spread, conditions during which fertilisers may not be spread and livestock manure storage capacity requirements. While these are fundamental elements of the directive, at the FCI, we believe that there is scope to introduce measures that provide benefits for water quality and biodiversity. The fundamental issue is that the current nitrates directive calendar farming system of closed periods is simply not working. Extending this system will not ensure that it can function any more satisfactorily. This current system is too simplistic and it is non-scientific. It has been proven not to be practical at farm level and it is now clearly not sustainable. This has been confirmed by the deterioration in water quality as measured by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, despite the attempts at the closed period policing, involving the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and local authorities. It is also despite the costly misdirected investment in LESS machinery systems funded by Government grant supports directly to farmers, rather than to farm contractors. This, again, is clearly acknowledged in the nitrates action programme, where it makes the point that contractors must be supported to purchase appropriate equipment.

What is lacking for us is a clear independent and technology-based, decision-making process to identify the best land spreading options based on measured information about air and soil temperatures, soil moisture levels, grass growing conditions, soil type information, predicted rainfall, slurry constituents, slurry volumes being spread and field mapping locations linked to machine tracking. Each of these individual indices is currently available but are they are not co-ordinated to ensure good decision-making. We currently have a simplistic calendar-based programme of work restriction that is not based on either science or technology. It has resulted in a behaviour on farms that is not consistent with the water quality objectives. Overall, the evidence from the agricultural catchments programme, ACP, indicates that supporting farmers to make better decisions regarding how and when they manage nutrient applications is likely to be the single area with the greatest potential to improve outcomes for water quality on Irish farms. That is a really important point.

On slurry storage, one of the reasons for the lack of slurry storage capacity on many farms is a lack of understanding among advisers and policymakers of the process of slurry management. FCI members are front-line providers of the slurry management services on farms. They understand the challenges and have rolled up their sleeves in attempting to develop management strategies that are sympathetic to our natural environment.

Slurry management in Ireland is significantly different to that in other European countries, meaning that the single application policies cannot function or be sustained. Some 80% of all silage now made is baled silage and during feeding, a large proportion of the silage ends up in slurry pits. There is a requirement to revise upwards, by at least 50%, the slurry storage requirements to take account of the long and high dry matter silage when mixed with the slurry and the resultant dilution needs when agitating this type of slurry product.

FCI believes that tillage farmers should also be grant-aided to invest in slurry storage facilities on their farms to store large volumes of liquid slurry exported from expanded and future expanding dairy, pig and beef farms that have limited land resources and face slurry storage challenges. This nutrient resource should be transferred to these tillage farms during the closed period of spreading, alleviating slurry storage challenges on highly stocked dairy and beef farms. Using modern precision farming systems it is possible to incorporate real-time traceability systems on slurry transfer machines of FCI registered contractors, linking that to a national database of slurry nutrients and movement managed by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. This proposed system will ensure more timely slurry use at its most efficient site of application on tillage farms, reducing the need for artificial fertilisers. This will provide longer seasonal work opportunities for skilled machinery operators within the contractor sector and retain rural-based machine operation expertise while boosting organic matter levels on Irish tillage farms, enhancing soil structures and supporting biodiversity.

On soiled water issues, our members provide soiled water management services on thousands of farms and they understand why the control and management of soiled water from farmyards needs greater emphasis across all delivery mechanisms under the nitrates action programme. The addition of soiled water to slurry tanks is causing many of the issues related to storage capacity. FCI supports the use of soiled water as a dilutant for the purposes of slurry agitation prior to spreading, reducing the need to import large volumes of clean water on the farm by means of proper management and engineering design.

On chemical fertiliser controls, while it is being proposed that the nitrogen allowances will be reduced by 10% nationally and potentially up to 15% in some areas based on the EPA catchment assessment report, these areas will be determined by the nitrates expert group based on input from the EPA, and any reductions in specific catchments will be undertaken on a phased basis. Changing the dates for work will not guarantee the delivery of the optimum spreading and utilisation strategies. What is required once again is a clear independent and technology-based, decision-making process on spreading times, etc.

Sewage sludges and the use of sludge is managed by Irish Water through its national wastewater sludge management plan. The application of sewage sludge to agricultural land is controlled by local authorities through the maintenance of sludge registers and inspection and enforcement programmes. Much of the land spreading work for this product is carried out by FCI farm contractors. The nitrates expert group aims to work with various stakeholders to address any risks from this nutrient source. FCI believes the association must be included with discussions as a stakeholder as our members provide the machines and operators that carry out this work.

The management, maintenance and submission of organic farm records is becoming a more important element of demonstrating compliance with current water quality regulations. At present all farmers are required to maintain up-to-date paper records of livestock manure and slurry. Failure to produce these records during an inspection can lead to significant payment penalties for farmers. By transferring this responsibility for the management of livestock manure and slurry recording to FCI registered contractors as part of their spreading licence application and to provide precision farming systems, a more streamlined process can be provided to ensure that contractors are able to manage the liquid slurry and manure records of their farmer clients. This will also free up additional time for farm advisers, whose time is often taken up with such record-keeping on behalf of farmers. The fact that poor slurry application decision-making on farms has been measured strongly suggests that there should be serious consideration given to licensing of slurry spreading and the slurry transfer process to registered contractors. These contractors can be licensed and their licence linked to a national database of slurry nutrients and slurry movement using precision farming technology managed by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in conjunction with a national FCI contractor register created and maintained by the association in partnership with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

FCI believes that farm and forestry contractors must be supported to invest in new low-emissions slurry spreading technology in the same way that farmers are currently supported. It has been proposed in the nitrates action programme that this should be the case. If no such supportive action is taken to improve the uptake of precision farming technology on farms below 100 ha, and the average farm size in Ireland 32.4 ha, it will become increasingly difficult for these farms to compete. These farms will also struggle to comply with the EU and national environmental and water quality goals. FCI members have not invested significantly in higher technology slurry management machinery to the same extent as their European counterparts due to the presence of the farmer-focused machinery grant aid system which is making investment in more accurate and more efficient spreading systems that incorporate precision farming systems with high levels of traceability and transparency, totally uncompetitive. How can any farm contractor compete with one of their client farmers who receives a grant aid of 60% for the purchase of low-emission system machine? FCI believes that the current green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, grant aid scheme should be extended to all farmers to use low emission slurry spreading, LESS, systems operated by an FCI registered contractor. If all LESS slurry spreading was grant-aided based on FCI contractor invoices, not just to existing GLAS farmers, the cost to the Government would be significantly less than the current cost of machinery grants which have run to more than €55 million. Many of the LESS machines purchased by farmers under the current TAMS II programme were purchased to take the advantage of the grant aid and for taxation benefits, rather than being needed to do the slurry spreading work. There is significant evidence that many of these machines are not being worked and will not be worked. This is a significant loss to the Government, the Irish water environment and Irish taxpayers who have supported investment in machines that will not be or are rarely used.

In regard to water quality in forestry, the risk of diffuse water pollution in Irish forestry is increased by poor site planning, poor management, and poor monitoring of machine work activities. There is often a lack of clear understanding of the forestry contractor’s challenges and responsibilities on site as work conditions often include a combination of high rainfall, heavy machinery, and steep ground. FCI believes forestry contractors and operators should receive funding for training in how to understand fully the forest operational plans, and have an input into their production. There must also be more investment in education for farmers on slurry management rather than investment for the purchase of slurry spreading machinery. Advisory programmes to inform farmers about optimum management of the slurry in their livestock sheds needs to be a priority. Good slurry management strategies save farm contractors significant time during the spreading operation and this will always convert into a financially more cost-effective contractor service for farmer clients.

FCI supports the establishment of a livestock manure and grass-based biodigester sector in Ireland. This approach to producing methane from grass, our best producing and lowest cost crop, will fulfil a significant number of requirements, including management of livestock manures to enhance water quality in an environmentally sensitive way while also contributing to lowering greenhouse gas emissions within the State. FCI believes that grass, as Ireland’s most productive crop, when used in conjunction with excess animal manure, will also mean additional rural-based employment as grass harvesting cannot be outsourced to another country.

I will now open to questions for members. I call Deputy Carthy.

I thank Mr. Moroney and Mr. Hughes for joining us today. I acknowledge this discussion is long overdue. I accept that the role of farm and forestry contractors is under-recognised in regard to strategies and policies that are set in place for our agriculture and food sectors. The importance of contractors to our rural economy and the farming community, particularly to smaller farm families, is going to intensify over the coming years. Therefore, I agree with the opening remark that it is imperative that the voices and expertise of contractors are brought to bear when policy decisions are being made. I have a few questions. Will the questions be taken by Mr. Moroney?

Mr. Michael Moroney

We will share the questions-----

Okay. For clarification purposes, Mr. Moroney mentioned there are now 1,000 farm and forestry contractors, employing some 10,000 people. Am I correct in saying there are 11,000 people working directly for the farm contractor sector? Are there regions with a greater prevalence or where the size of contractors is greater?

Mr. Michael Moroney

There are no significant regional differences although suffice to say, given that Cork is the largest county for agricultural output in the country, it has the largest number of agricultural contractors. Forestry contractors work throughout the country and do not tend to be county- or region-based. We have contractors in the forestry sector who operate throughout Ireland. Generally, the largest areas are probably Cork and Tipperary, two of the largest farming counties in the country but within each other county, there are significant numbers of contractors.

Obviously there are both large and small contractor operations. Is there any geographical distinction in terms of where one might find larger contractors that would cover more farms or more land than others?

Mr. Michael Moroney

Not specifically, no. In some of the larger-farm areas, individual contractors would have a higher throughput of work on individual farms but they may not be dealing with as many farmers as contractors working in a smaller-farm area would be.

Quite a number of times in his opening remarks, Mr. Moroney referred to the LESS equipment and the failure of the Government to allow contractors to fit into the grant scheme for that equipment. I absolutely agree that LESS equipment and technology has been proven to be environmentally beneficial. It can have a positive impact on water quality in particular but also on emissions levels. It is laughable that somebody living beside a DART station, with a bus passing by every day of the week and a cycle lane nearby can get a grant towards a new electric car but somebody who is purchasing this type of equipment, regardless of his or her status, is not able to draw down Government support, despite the fact that the benefits would be multiples of those arising from the use of an electric car. This must be addressed and there are two issues at play. The first is the future of TAMS. The compellability of this type of technology will mean, ironically, that it will not qualify for grant aid at all, potentially. There is also the issue that Mr. Moroney raised and I want to delve into that a little more. Going back to the 1,000 members, how many of them are farmers as well as being contractors?

Mr. Michael Moroney

Our estimate is that somewhere between 60% and 70% of those contractors have some farming input. Many of them have a very small farm but have some farming input.

Some 60% to 70% might be eligible for TAMS through being a farmer rather than a contractor. Is that correct?

Mr. Michael Moroney

I will ask our Chairman, Mr. Hughes, to respond because he has direct experience as a contractor with a small farm attempting to get a TAMS grant.

Mr. John Hughes

I am a professional contractor of 43 years standing. That is all I have ever done for my whole life. My brother and I inherited the business from our late father. I farm a 20 ha farm or in old money, 50 acres. I have applied for grant aid through TAMS but because my holding is so small, I am not eligible and because of my age - I will be 61 on my next birthday - my score is not high enough for the scheme. These are the two negatives that forced me out. As a farmer I am eligible and I get through the first door but I am not able to pass beyond the next door because in terms of the criteria, I do not tick the boxes. The question that should be asked of those who are applying for a grant for a machine is what amount of work they are going to do with said machine. For instance, I have two strip-till drills that are out working. I have 22 separate clients for a strip-till drill to whom I can bring value over the course of the season. That stops 22 people from going out to buy their own drill. It would not make economic sense for most of them to do so anyway. My smallest client for that job last year had 1 ha and the largest had 88 acres or 35-odd ha. Despite the value I can bring to those 22 people I do not get any State support through TAMS for my strip-till drills. They are eligible for grant aid but the scheme criteria do not allow me to venture any further than the fact that I am a farmer. My farm is a hobby farm. I use it for experimentation using the strip-till drill, to promote it. It is one of the primary development areas for nitrates, for locking up carbon in the soil, organic matter and so forth. That is my experience of it. I am a farmer but I am also a professional contractor and my farm is a hobby, basically.

Just to clarify, I agree entirely with the principle that if this equipment is being used it should be grant-aided in the same way as other environmental measures are grant-aided, regardless of somebody's occupation as such. I am just trying to figure out how the Government could provide grant aid if TAMS is not an option in the future. There was one comment in Mr. Moroney's statement that we would be challenged on were we to bring it to the Department. He said that there is significant evidence that many of the machines that are being grant-aided currently through TAMS are not working and will not be worked. Essentially, he is saying that there is significant evidence that farmers are drawing down grant aid for machines that they are then leaving in the shed. Where is that significant evidence?

Mr. Michael Moroney

The evidence is from our own members who since the early part of 2021 have been requested by their customers, by client farmers, to pull machines or to operate machines because the farmers were not able to do so. I do not have a survey as such but we have very significant evidence from our membership who have been in contact with us about this on a regular basis. My colleague here and the former chairman, Mr. Richard White, is contracting in an area of Tipperary and he would support that contention. His phone is on mute at the moment, unfortunately, but the evidence is widespread, not just in that area but throughout the country. Many of our members have been in touch with us to tell us that farmers have made such requests.

Farmers who have got LESS equipment through TAMS are contacting members of the FCI to use that equipment on their behalf. Is that correct?

Mr. Michael Moroney

Yes, to use that equipment for them or to use the contractor's own equipment. Essentially, as we said in our submission, they have used the benefit of grant aid, coupled with the taxation system, to purchase equipment which they do not really have the desire or the skills to use.

Does Mr. Moroney have figures for how many of the FCI's 1,000 members have access to LESS equipment?

Mr. Michael Moroney

I would say at this stage that a significant number of them have. They have purchased the equipment off their own bat, exclusive of grant aid mainly because contractors will drive technology on. They are very quick to move on with new technology and new systems and they identified that LESS is what their customers need. It is important to make the point that when grant aid becomes applicable to machines like LESS machines, typically the cost of the machine rises in accordance with the level of grant aid. What we are finding is that FCI members who purchased machines without a grant aid facility have had to pay extra for those machines simply because they are eligible for grant aid so the price rose accordingly. There was a double penalty. Some of them lost the opportunity to get a grant but when they invested in their own equipment, they have had to pay more as a consequence of the machines being grant aided. That is an unfortunate reality but that is what has happened.

Mr. Moroney is saying that a significant number of FCI members have this equipment. Does he have a round percentage figure? Is he talking about half of the FCI's members or more?

Mr. Michael Moroney

I would say that in excess of half of our members have invested in this technology, mainly through their own resources.

That is useful information.

Mr. Michael Moroney

The grant aid system for the machines does not allow for financing it under a leasing programme. It must be a capital investment directly. As most contractors finance their machinery systems through leasing programmes, that also disenfranchises them for that opportunity.

While the FCI has not raised this issue today, I am trying to get an update. Deputy Doherty and I have frequently asked about the effects of the carbon tax on farm contractors. When I have raised this with the Minister for Finance, he has advised that a review is taking place. Has the FCI had any direct liaison with the Department of Finance or the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine? Is Mr. Moroney satisfied that the issue will be resolved?

Mr. Michael Moroney

We have made a number of submissions to the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine and to the Department of Finance. We have not had any response on a review. We would have expected that there would be some consultation as part of a review process. We have not had that consultation. It probably does not make us totally satisfied that it will take place. We feel that it is unfair that once again, farm contractors are required to pay the carbon tax when their customers can claim the carbon tax portion back as, in a sense, a second deduction.

I agree with Mr. Moroney on that. I am trying to get a sense of whether he feels the Department is taking that call seriously.

Mr. Michael Moroney

We believe that it is. The tax strategy group produced its report in September and it also recommended that. On that basis, we also suggested that in the Form 11 tax return form applicable to everybody who is self-employed etc. at the end of each tax year where people check the box to say they were farming, they should be required to show a figure for diesel consumption. That would indicate if it was consistent with, for example, a 60-cow or 100-cow herd or if significantly more diesel was consumed. We felt it would be important to establish the use levels. We are looking forward to further interaction with the Department of Finance officials and we hope that they will not just listen - we believe they have listened to us - but we hope they will take action.

In previous correspondence, Mr. Moroney mentioned that the FCI hoped to be included in discussions of the nitrates expert group regarding the control of industrial sludges. Has it been included in any of those discussions to date?

Mr. Michael Moroney

We have made the application, but we have not been included in the discussions to date.

Who will make that call?

Mr. Michael Moroney

The Environmental Protection Agency seems to have the management of that. If we are going to develop the latter point we made about biodigesters, there are issues in some areas with identifying what a digestate is as a product and whether there is a requirement to license the application. These are very significant policy changes that will help determine the future of the whole biodigester sector. Our members have a very significant input in managing that process for the betterment of the very valuable fertiliser for our farmer clients.

The Chairman has put a clock on me.

I have been very indulgent with the Deputy.

I have one last question. Mr. Moroney set out in detail his criticism of the closed period for slurry spreading and even the proposed tightening of this. To summarise, he has called for an independent and technology-based decision-making process using the data available. I ask him to outline what that system would look like. Who would be responsible for it? How would it be overseen?

Mr. Michael Moroney

Each year Met Éireann gives guidance on the appropriate time for blight spraying. It develops that guidance based on indices from various sources incorporating weather, growth etc. We are suggesting that something similar would be done for slurry application, which is a bigger process with more people involved and more widespread interaction with people throughout the country. The numbers of people involved in potato growing is quite small, but a far bigger group of people are using slurry systems. Therefore, we believe it is far more urgent and important to have that independent data-driven decision-making process.

It is useful to have that viewpoint and I hope we will be seeing Mr. Moroney again soon. I thank the Chairman for his indulgence.

It is great to have representatives of the FCI here today. The opening statement was quite complex but exceptionally good. The piece that jumped out at me was:

A farm contractor cannot easily become a farmer...

By purchasing a new tractor or machine grant-aided, supported by the TAMS scheme, overnight a farmer can become a farm contractor.

That encapsulates the challenges and difficulties. The statement indicated that farmers receive 60% grant aid for the low-emission slurry spreading scheme, commonly known as LESS. How can a contractor compete with that? A major investment in equipment is involved requiring loans etc. We talk about the issue of the environment and the serious issues with emissions etc. We know that farming is inextricably linked to climate change, which makes perfect sense.

Who administers the FCI contract register? How does a contractor get on that register? Is that register linked to the Department in any way? Mr. Moroney made some reference to the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine. I ask him to outline the relationship between the register and the Department.

The FCI submission states, "If all LESS slurry spreading was grant-aided based on FCI contractor invoices, not just to existing GLAS farmers, the cost to the Government would be significantly less than the current cost of machinery grants which have run to more than €55 million." I ask Mr. Moroney to tease out that argument and explain it further.

Water quality issues in Irish forestry are very important and we have considered them in detail. Indeed, we have considered forestry in detail at this committee. Mr. Moroney mentioned the risk of diffused water pollution. We are all familiar with that regarding the pollution and how it relates to the Irish forestry. He mentioned poor management and monitoring of machinery. He said, "There is often a lack of clear understanding of the forestry contractor’s challenges and responsibilities". I fully support the FCI's belief that forestry contractors and their operators should receive funding for training on operations, plans, identifying risks to water and training on the use of machinery. That is very valid and I would like Mr. Moroney to explore that more with the committee. I again thank him. It is high time that representatives of the FCI appeared before the committee. We recognise the enormous role the FCI plays in the agriculture industry.

Deputy Carthy asked about the membership. Am I right in saying that 60% of the professional contractors are also farmers? That does not necessarily mean they all qualify for TAMS. Mr. Hughes outlined from his direct experience that it is possible to open one door and get in so far but can go no further. I have been frequently told about that. Holdings below a certain threshold do not qualify. There are major challenges for farmers without a herd number who cannot qualify for TAMS. This is a common problem.

I am delighted the FCI has come before the committee. I ask him to tease out those important issues.

Mr. Michael Moroney

I thank the Senator for his supportive comments. I hope I have all the points in the correct order.

We have proposed a register to the Department and it has responded that we should create a register ourselves. We have almost completed the process of doing this. We will have several key points on the register. The contractors will be VAT registered and registered as an employer. They will possess contractor insurance policies so there will be proper insurance cover. They will have an audited annual safety statement to protect themselves, their employees and customers. They will also have a record of staff training for manual handling and the necessary safety training programmes. These are our five criteria. We suggested this to the Department which, in a sense, batted it back to us and asked us to come up with a suggested programme. We are at this at present. We are in the process of compiling it and we hope to have it in place before the end of May 2022. These are the requirements at this stage.

If farmers involved in some of the environmental schemes tick the GLAS box they have to identify a number of programmes in which they will take part. One of these is low-emission slurry spreading. They will get a grant based on the contractor invoices and the number of cubic meters of slurry spread. Quite a few of our members fulfil these requirements. They complete the invoices for their farmer clients, so they can satisfy the requirements of the GLAS scheme. We suggest this should not be restricted to GLAS but that all farmers should have access to it. If they have a registered contractor who provides them with a low-emission slurry spreading system they should be able to apply successfully for similar grant aid. This would encourage better use of equipment on farms.

Water quality issues with regard to forestry has been an issue. I note the committee has been very involved in forestry issues as have we on the forestry policy working group. It is important for us that the role of the contractor is recognised in this. It is important that when the forestry service in the Department identifies the new machinery systems or planting systems that it also includes input from the contractors. Ultimately, they are the people who will have to use the machines to carry out the work. It is not satisfactory for the Department's forestry service to come up with a programme of mechanisation or a forestry strategy without consulting the forestry contractors. Some of the proposals that have been made are virtually impractical. With input from contractors, who are the people doing the work, this could be far more valuable and useful and get far better results for the whole sector.

I have a question on the contractor register. It is very progressive and we certainly did not have a sense of the detail that Mr. Moroney has given us now. This is the benefit of meeting people face to face and teasing out some questions. It is a really progressive measure. It addresses issues of VAT registration, insurance policies and training and professional development. These are things we need to hear about. This is the way of the world now, whether we like it or not. It is very positive and I ask Mr. Moroney to send in more information on it, if he would not mind, including on the timeline and the ambition for it. It is key.

However, I also know contractors who I can nearly hear telling me that they will not get into it and that it would not be worth getting into. I can understand this. Will Mr. Moroney tell us how it is progressing? I also ask him to keep the committee informed. Will he also keep us informed on the timelines of the FCI's engagement with the Department on it? Most importantly, does Mr. Moroney get a sense from the membership about what they think? Will he briefly tell the committee how this is floating with FCI members? It is very positive. It is really good and something that will help the cause and case of the FCI. It is something that is to be welcomed. Will Mr. Moroney share with us his interaction and the support he has from FCI members for the register?

Mr. Michael Moroney

I will hand over to the chairman, Mr. Hughes, to respond as he is a contractor himself.

Mr. John Hughes

In other industries there are registers for gas installers, electricians and other trade representatives. These registers brings them to a certain level which is the minimum requirement and people can go up levels if they wish. It means the client can expect a minimum standard from an FCI registered member, as we outlined in the criteria. It gives a sense of responsibility to the contractors as they have to achieve a certain standard. This is the aim behind it. It is the first step on the ladder. It is a small step but nonetheless it is a step. We can keep stepping up with personal development and business acumen accreditation.

The industry will have a better view of itself from within and be better viewed from outside. People will see it is a professional association run by professionals for professionals and not just a bunch of fellows standing on corners smoking Woodbines thinking they are great. It is far from it. We want to bring ourselves to a level that our European counterparts achieved a long number of years ago. We have been slow to get out the blocks but we are on the road and we intend to achieve the targets we have aimed for. It is a long road but nonetheless we aim to get there.

Well done and I thank the witnesses.

I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee. I am a contractor. As the lads would say, I am not a very big operator but when we are in politics some smart Alec will make a dig. I am a contractor and I do slurry and bailing. I might do 8,000 bales. I have just done a tally that if 50% of FCI members are not eligible for grant aid then between 30,000 to 40,000 farmers throughout the country would not have the offer of a contractor under the low-emission slurry spreading system unless they buy it themselves. At present in most places, unless there is a derogation, slurry can be spread with a splash plate. New gear can be bought and put on the back of the tankers but it is awkward enough with some of them. What is coming more and more into play is the pipe system with the reel and the pump. Given how the prices of 2,500 gallon or 3,000 gallon tankers have increased people are looking at an investment of the guts of €50,000 and another €8,000 for an agitator. People are probably looking at spending €50,000 or €60,000 for 700 m or 800 m of piping, a dribble bar, a compressor and a pump. I predict that with the new regulations to be introduced in 2025, if contractors cannot avail of a grant system, they will not be on the road in 2025. Do the witnesses agree?

Mr. Michael Moroney

I certainly would agree with this. As an interesting aside, Northern Ireland has a similar grant system. It has put in place a size limit of 2,500 gallons on the tankers for which it is prepared to provide grant aid. We will provide grant aid for far larger tankers on farms rather than in contractor fleets. This is something we feel is important. There should be a ceiling on the size of the tank on a farm that will be given grant aid if contractors continue to be excluded.

The maximum amount of grant aid is €40,000. It will not buy a big tank if people have to buy the tank and an agitator. Is this fair to say?

Mr. Michael Moroney

It is. If people are buying a tank, agitator and trailing shoe or dribble bar this is the kind of money they will spend.

Is it correct to say some countries in the EU have facilitated contractors? My understanding is that one or two countries have facilitated contractors in the system because they understand farmers will not be doing it. To be honest, there is not much point in putting a 2,000 gallon tank behind a Massey Ferguson 135 even if a grant is given for it.

I mean no disrespect to the Massey Ferguson 135. There seem to be different rules for different countries and our Department is always saying that this is not allowed for contractors. Where in Europe has the association examined?

Mr. Michael Moroney

We are part of the European Confederation of Agricultural, Rural and Forestry Contractors, CEETTAR. We have also sought some information from Europe. We understand that, under the previous TAMS grant, contractors were eligible under the agricultural and rural development fund support provisions under Regulation (EU) No. 1305/2013. That provided a business start-up support for activities such as farm contractor. However, we also understand that it was the choice of Irish Government authorities not to include support under Article 19 in the Irish rural development programme. I will quote from the reply by the European Commission to Petition 0284/2017 to the European Parliament that was delivered in 2017. It listed contractors as being eligible under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. It reads:

However, it has been the choice of the Irish authorities not to include support under Article 19 into the Irish Rural Development Programmes (RDP). The Irish farm investment scheme referred to in the petition is based on Article 17(1)(a) of the Regulation (EC) No 1305/2013, which allows support only to farmers or groups of farmers.

I wish to ask Mr. Moroney a question. We are discussing climate change and low-emission slurry spreading. There is a report from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine on anaerobic digestion. Once the digestate goes through an anaerobic digester at temperature, it is classed as an organic fertiliser, which will be helpful this year. A report done by Teagasc, NUIG, UCD and the Department recommended spreading it via splash plate or low-emission slurry spreading, which we would call the dribble bar. However, there seems to be confusion in some parts of the country around digestates and a belief that it has to be put into the ground using the disc injector system. Has the association encountered this problem in the interpretation by councils of how slurry is to be spread? Is it a worrying development? If we start down the road of slitting slurry in using a disc injector, we will be looking at a tractor of nearly twice the horsepower. A general contractor's tractor might be 180 or 200 horsepower, but if the ground is tight, nearly twice that amount would be needed. According to the report, if there are shallow soils, there would also be a danger of the slurry going down through the ground more quickly.

Mr. Michael Moroney

We have encountered it and it is something on which we would like some clarity. It appears that there are diverse views among local authorities as to what the digestate product is. That is not satisfactory from the contractor's perspective nor the perspective of the digester's owner.

Regarding the application of slurry, there is a relatively small number of disc systems in the country. A significant issue is that all of our soils in Ireland are derived from glacial product, meaning there is a great deal of stone in the soil. In many areas where slurry could be applied or is intended to be applied using injector systems, for example, discs, it will give rise to stone damage or to stones being brought to the surface. Farmers would not want to have slurry spread in those conditions. This situation is not widespread, but it is an issue in some cases. It would also add to the cost because the process of injecting is slower than using a splash plate or trailing shoe. That is an additional problem that people would have to address.

We have encountered this issue and are aware of it. We are trying to get clarity on whether the Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, or whoever will be able to identify the digestate product, which is a fertiliser and has the opportunity to displace artificial fertilisers, which have become very expensive. This is an opportunity and we do not want it wasted.

How concerned is Mr. Moroney that, in March 2020, diesel was being bought at 44 cent or 43 cent – it went under 40 cent for a week – but it is at 92 cent in bulk today, or 94 cent for smaller amounts? I have been listening to contractors from my area. With the way the price of diesel is increasing and a carbon tax due to apply to it in May, many contractors now appear to be considering where they are heading. We have to be fairly honest, in that many contractors rely on the AIB for most of the year. They put out slurry at the middle or end of January when the season opens, they do another bit, they go baling silage, building silage pits or whatever, and work during the rest of the year. That is not sustainable at the moment.

Banks are not lending to contractors. Many people would have taken out a working capital loan every year but I have heard that, for whatever reason, one of our main banks is putting them through hell on earth to get loans this year. I will tell the witnesses what I have heard – many contractors are looking to see whether they would be better off going into building because they cannot sustain what is happening. I put it to Mr. Moroney that, due to the increasing price of diesel and machinery, contractors being left out of low-emission schemes and so on and how tough the banks are being, contractors will grow scarcer over the next five to eight years and farmers will start booking them, even though they think at the moment that that will not happen. What is the association's view on this?

Mr. Michael Moroney

Our view would be very similar to the Deputy's. He is close to the ground in his understanding. Prior to the pandemic when we had regional meetings and face-to-face meetings, we were always concerned by the number of grey heads in the room. That is a significant point. Contractors are planning their work for 2022. They are looking at diesel costs and the lack of labour availability, which is a major problem in rural areas. Some of them are contemplating whether it is time to give it up. One of the problems that many contractors have is that their assets are machines, which depreciate over time by their nature, so it is not always easy to convert those assets into something if a contractor decides to retire.

There is considerable concern, not just in Ireland, but across Europe among our CEETTAR partners but it is more significant here because our costs seem to be higher. The Deputy is right, in that we have heard quotes today from our members of up to 94 cent per litre for diesel. There is a frightening prospect that diesel could increase to €1.50 per litre if there are issues at an international level over which we have no control. In that scenario, it would not be sustainable to run a contracting business and provide a service for farmers. Farm incomes will not justify dealing with the realistic charges that will need to be put in place if the price of diesel goes to those levels.

I will pass the committee over to our chairman, who might add further comments.

Mr. John Hughes

I thank the Deputy for his questions. It is a fact that the grey-haired brigade took over the rooms when we used to have face-to-face meetings. Diesel is just one element among a number of issues with TAMS, GLAS and so on that have finally come to a point and are now being recognised. They are piled up against the agricultural contractor, possibly because we did not make enough noises ourselves as an industry.

Hopefully, now we will get more recognition. That would be a help.

The carbon tax, on its own, for example, is a tax on food production. The farmer, as we mentioned earlier, can get the carbon tax rebate on that section of the fuel but we, as professionals, cannot. It is a shame that we cannot but, hopefully, we will rectify that in the near future.

I suppose you could say it is death by a thousand cuts. We are running into the nine hundreds at present. It is not too far off where we will get to the thousand and there will not be a continuation of this industry.

My business is celebrating its 74th year but there is no next generation coming on behind me to take over the business. They do not want it because there are alternatives that are cleaner, nicer and pay better. Why would you want to? We need to build an industry that people would want to get involved in.

We need a training structure for people to come into it in order that they can see that there is development going forward in the industry. That is why we welcome the initiative of Teagasc and the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science to do with careers in apprenticeship. To be honest, it is a decade too late. I suppose better late than never. As for whether it will be too late, it possibly will. We need to get the speed up on that and deliver sooner rather than later. I am aware they are talking about putting in the training for tractor and machinery equipment later in the year but it, too, is another stumbling block because it is late. Everything is late. Late is no good. If you are late getting the cow to the bull, you will not have a crop. You are late getting the corn in, you will not have a crop. If you are late with the apprenticeship, there will not be any industry.

This is my final question because I note the runners and the riders are running out of time here. I note the clock has gone to zero. If there was one message the contractors want us to send to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, what would their top message be? I thank the witnesses.

Mr. Michael Moroney

I thank Deputy Fitzmaurice. Our one message is we need a register of contractors. We need the sector organised and structured in order that we can develop it, as Mr. Hughes said, so that we can put together programmes to allow employees and people to develop the sector.

At present, we are the hidden asset of Irish agriculture. Nobody wants to talk to us. Nobody wants to consider the role of the contractor. They talk about farming and most people who are even on the fringes of the sector do not consider the role of the contractor at all. It is as if we are invisible in the room. We are not. We are doing the work. Agriculture cannot and will not survive without the role of farm and forestry contractors.

Contractors are an essential cog in the wheel.

I acknowledge and welcome our guests this afternoon. It is an important topic.

First of all, I apologise I missed part of their opening statement. I was delayed at another meeting.

There are significant challenges there for the industry, whether it is labour, access to grants, carbon tax and the price of plastic. The price of parts and of new machinery, particularly in the past six or eight months, has been a real issue that many contractors have come across in my part of the world.

That last comment is important. They are, more than ever, an important part of the wheel. It does not work without them in so many ways.

We had a discussion earlier on the trailing shoe and about low-emission spreading of slurry. The truth must be told. The majority of farmers in Ireland do not have tractors to pull this machinery. That is why we are all using low-emission spreading slurry tanks with a contractor. We all are aware of the benefits, both in economic and environmental terms. It is important that the agricultural community does what it can to make sure the contractors can avail of grants to make sure that we can have more low-emission slurry tanks, even though you would be probably waiting 18 months to get one at this stage.

It is an important part. If you look at the new Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, in particular, where we are going environmentally, whether it is how we will manage the spreading of fertiliser or whatever, in talking to my farming community, that is a topic that they are saying could be done by contractors. Given the price of a new fertiliser spreader with the new GPS heading up to €28,000 or €30,000, a normal farmer would not be availing of that. You would be looking to get a contractor to come in every ten days to do it in rotation because you would believe that would be the appropriate way to do business. We need to make sure that there is availability of grants so that we can get our contractors to spend the money to buy the machinery so that we can increase our environmental standing and also qualify for these new proposals in CAP.

We are intertwined. If the farming contractor is not on board, the entire venture goes off line. That is a real issue. Now more than ever, the contractors are such an important part of it.

I ask Mr. Moroney to comment on a few issues, in particular, the labour issue. From speaking to contractors a while ago, labour and access to competent and capable pilots who will be involved seems to be a significant issue for contractors at present. How is Mr. Moroney proposing to deal with that labour issue? I agree it is a significant issue on farms but I often say you would prefer to drive a tractor than milk cows. If the contractors are finding it hard to get labour, where will the industry go? What needs to be done to get people into the industry making sure there are competent people driving the machines?

Many members spoke on the grants issue. Access to TAMS, is such an obvious requirement, in particular, with the new environment. The majority of farmers are so busy that they will be moving to contract out more work, whether it is the zero-grazing, the slurry, the spreading of fertiliser or bringing in the first cut in the bales. These all will be part of the contractors' role but we need to have an industry that is lined up for it.

The carbon tax issue was touched on by Mr. Moroney, but I will go back to the price of machinery and parts, and the price of plastic to a lesser degree. The latter was an issue last year and probably will be an issue this year. The price of parts, particularly in the past number of months, has been an extraordinary issue. From talking to people in Cork, we have had parts inflation of anything up to 30% to 40% in the past few months. Mr. Moroney might share his thoughts on where that will affect the industry. Is it Brexit, is it shortages or where are the blockages regarding that issue?

Of course, then there is the price of new machinery. I was talking to a contractor a while ago and you would nearly buy a farm for what they are telling me they are buying tractors for now. It is so significant. That is why, if you have a 2,800 gallon tanker coming in with a trailing shoe, there is no normal dairy farmer or beef farmer who will have machinery to pull that. I refer to the expense that they are going to in order to get this work done. Mr. Moroney might share his thoughts on the cost of machinery and how sustainable it will be to have a fleet of five or six tractors of 200 horse power each in the yard. It is an amazing layout of capital. Is this sustainable? How can we make sure that they can survive if that is the projection of the way the industry is going?

Mr. Michael Moroney

I thank Senator Lombard for his comments.

The issues of sustainability are significant issues within the sector. To add to the Senator's comments about parts prices, tractor tyre prices have gone up by 50% in the past 18 months as well. Two of our members quoted for a set of tyres for a modern contractor tractor in October 2020 at €8,500 and the same set of tyres on the same tractor were purchased in October 2021 at a cost of €13,000. The costs are spiralling almost out of control at this stage and that affects the sustainability of the business.

Machinery costs are significant. Year-on-year machinery costs have been rising by between 5% and 10%. Some of them have been accounted for by new low-emission systems on tractors and the requirements for the manufacturers to adhere to the emission regulations as proposed by the EU. That has driven some of the cost increases, as has changes in the EU tractor directive whereby there was a requirement to change some of the design of issues, such as steps. All have added to additional tractor costs.

Significantly, in the Senator's area, in Cork, where there is a large number of contractors providing an excellent service to farmers, the investment that many of them have in equipment is now running into millions of euro. It probably brings into context the need for us to send a message as to why understanding costing is important.

That would probably lead us to think, if we are to be realistic about it, that there may be some changes and consolidation in the future. That is happening in other countries. We talked in particular to our colleagues in Denmark and Holland, where there is come consolidation whereby a number of contractors can come together in order to allow one of them to have an exit strategy. We would like to work with our membership in order to help them chart a way to that, if that is their desire. We will, realistically, see fewer people in the business because financially, as the cost structures stand in 2022, it is not sustainable at the rates that many of the contractors are charging. They are giving an excellent service to farms and they have given excellent value. They have given a service that is unique in terms of a customer relationship.

Mr. Hughes, our chairman, has mentioned that he has been in business for 74 years. The Hughes family has worked with generations of farmers over decades. They have developed a service that cannot be matched in any other sector. However, we are now at a point where the costs are beginning to be insurmountable. That is going to force some people to leave the business or consider consolidation and mergers because the only way they can bear the costs is by increasing the output from the same machines. That will necessitate significant change.

I welcome our guests. I apologise but I was speaking in the Dáil so I missed some of the meeting. Perhaps some of the points I will raise have already been covered. Am I to take it that our guests are taking issue with the closed period during which spreading is prohibited? Are they saying the system is too simplistic and not practical at farm level? They have also pointed out that our watercourses are polluted, which means there is a failure in the system as it stands. Do our guests' system for analysing ground conditions for particular areas, combined with weather forecasting and taking into account a particular pasture base and machine-type information, suggest that the closed period should be substantially changed? If so, what changes do our guests foresee? Have they engaged with the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, on their views?

Mr. Michael Moroney

On the closed period, the Deputy is right, we are saying the system is far too simplistic. We are making decisions about when is the best time to spread slurry based on a calendar, not based on the conditions at the time. The Teagasc PastureBase survey programme shows there is more grass growth in November in most years than in January but we are still applying slurry in January and not in November. In some Novembers, the conditions are not suitable for spreading slurry but we are not using a scientific approach to the management of the issue. We are using a simplistic calendar-based approach. We are picking a date on the calendar, irrespective of the weather.

Some of the Deputy's Dáil colleagues have mentioned climate change, the impact it is having on the environment and the changes we are living through. None of that is being taken into account in deciding the best time for slurry application in this country. That is important. We are saying that needs to change as a matter of urgency. The evidence that the current approach is not working is that our water quality has deteriorated. What more evidence is needed? The only effect that extending the closed period into October will have is that more slurry will be spread from 15 January. It will not mean anything else. It will mean a higher concentration of slurry spreading on 15 January or on whatever date it opens in the respective regions. It will not mean that people will behave differently. It will mean that the floodgates will open at a certain point. The decision to spread in January will, unfortunately, be made irrespective of weather conditions and the end result is that a lot of the slurry will end up in the wrong place. It will not end up at the growing point of the plant. On our analyses of everything else, including the pandemic, we are using scientific data but we are not doing so to deal with this important issue on Irish farms.

Have our guests engaged with the EPA on that matter or is it one of the organisations that has not brought our guests in for discussions?

Mr. Michael Moroney

That whole area is under the control of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. We have engaged significantly with the Department and Teagasc on this issue.

Looking through our guests' statements, they also believe that the GLAS grant aid scheme should be extended to all farmers to allow them use the low-emission slurry spreading, LESS, system that is operated by the Forestry Contractors of Ireland, FCI. That would cost the Government less and would result in less slurry being spread. Have our guests analysed how much less it would cost the Government and how much less slurry would be spread?

Mr. Michael Moroney

We have done analysis of the LESS but I do not have it immediately to hand. We will provide the Deputy with that analysis over the coming week.

Our guests have also talked about more education for farmers on slurry management rather than investing in and purchasing slurry spreading machinery. The conditions on 40% of Irish farms are not suitable for spreading slurry using the dribble bar and trailing shoe system. Could it reduce blockages and save money?

Mr. Michael Moroney

There is absolutely no question about it. A certain number of our members have made a considerable effort in terms of their farmer clients and worked with them almost hand in hand to persuade them to develop new strategies. They adopted an advisory role to make the contractor's life easier, have fewer blockages and to ensure, in having fewer blockages, easier agitation. The end result was the charges to the farmer were lower because the process of agitating and spreading was easier. There are significant benefits to be had. We believe the message around how slurry is managed should be delivered as a priority and funding should be put into prioritising that message rather than funding equipment.

I will return to what Mr. Moroney said earlier about not being included in discussions. I understand our guests have not been in touch with the EPA. Have they had discussions with other agencies, such as Teagasc, and the Department? I understand they have been in touch with the Department about suggestions. It seems to me that the proposal is for a centralised way of providing farm services, with the additional benefit of addressing environmental concerns through the use of expertise, data forecasting and local knowledge. Have our guests run their proposals by the farmers who have used the services of their contractors?

Mr. Michael Moroney

On the data processing stuff, we have not done so because nobody has invested in that technology to any great extent here because the additional costs of investing are significant. For example, John Deere has a unit called a HarvestLab, which can be fit onto a machine to measure nutrients, volumes, dry matter, etc. However, very few people have invested in them because the cost is significant. We are talking about in excess of €20,000 just for the unit to be able to measure that. If contractors are to make that investment, they need to be sure they will get some return on it. Quite a small number of people have made such an investment. They are working it with their client farmers. Teagasc and the Department have not come on board to understand the value of that technology, which is now widely available and widely used by our counterparts across Europe. We have not been able to go to events for the past two years, but when we went to exhibitions across Europe and met our counterparts prior to that, we found out that most of the contractors who are dealing with liquid slurries are successfully using that type of technology.

Could the farm advisers Mr. Moroney is talking about and the Association of Farm & Forestry Contractors in Ireland, in terms of the role that each can play in the area of the provision of services and advice, work together with what is available? Does Mr. Moroney think there is a reluctance on the part of some of the advisers?

Mr. Michael Moroney

Our role is predominantly to provide machinery services on farms. In doing that, sometimes there is a requirement, naturally, to provide advice as to how best those machinery services can be used. In any world where there is advice given, the advice may not always totally concur. If we take it that quite a lot of the technical development that has taken place in Irish farming, we would arguably say that the role of the contractor has been as significant, if not more significant, than many of the other bodies who are involved in farming because, let us not forget, that the role of the contractor is hugely dependent on the success of the farm business. If the farm business is not financially successful then the contractor is out of business. If the farm is not successful then other bodies that provide advice, though not intrinsically linked with the performance of the farm, then that does not affect their income, etc. That is why our linkage to farmer clients is so important and that connection is extremely strong. It is a connection in terms of advice but it is also a connection in terms of the financial viability of both sides of that equation.

Mr. Moroney said that he believes training is needed in order for people to understand the forest operational plans and how to identify the risks to water that might arise. He also mentioned the maintenance of machinery and knowing what actions to take in case of a pollution incident in a forest. Can he indicate on what basis that starts on? Can he tell us whether the Department has a responsibility to advise and monitor this aspect?

Mr. Michael Moroney

Our contractors are the people who do the work on the ground. The Deputy will probably have heard the following message from the forest policy group, and that is to have the right trees in the right places but with the right management. We all appreciate such an approach but forestry now has a different input in terms of society. All society wants ownership of the forest sector and not just the people who grow the trees. We are seeing that increasingly in terms of the output from the forest policy group. There will be a number of public consultations around that area and around that mission statement of the right trees in the right place but with the right management. They are very significant parts of what is happening. It is important that when contractors work in a forest that their work function is more visible than many other people because they do the most significant work. They are either digging and mounding, building roads or harvesting trees so one cannot hide a machine when doing such work. One is very transparent and very obvious so that puts huge responsibility on forestry contractors to perform at the best level possible because how they perform impacts on how other people see forestry. We want everyone to see forestry both in terms of being an amenity but also an industry because forestry is hugely important to this country. Our percentage at 11% of the total land area is still too small but we will not get people involved in the sector unless we can all take ownership of what forestry is but do so on the basis that we develop the best standards. When the forestry division within the Department is developing the management strategies they need to involve contractors in terms of what is and is not possible, and how that work can be done. That is hugely important.

Mr. Moroney answered what I was going to ask him next. He spoke about the increase in the price of tyres and all of that. Over the last couple of weeks we have discussed the price of fuel and energy costs. I imagine that the increase in the price of fuel has had a massive effect on contractors. Have they seen an impact on the farmers for whom they work? Will the energy price increases hamper the ability of the members of the association and that of the farmers to manage their use of manure and slurry effectively? I do not know which witness said that some contractors are talking about packing it all up. If a large number of contractors decide to pack up due the increase in the price of fuel, etc., will the sector face a problem?

Mr. Michael Moroney

The chairman of the association will respond.

Mr. John Hughes

There is always the threat that people will exit the industry. If the industry is sustainable then people will remain but right now the straws are piling up on the camel and there is not much space left for more. There has been a constant stream of small incremental increases in terms of tyres, diesel and fuel. Plus, trying to manage labour has been a huge issue. Sometimes, when one wakes up on a Monday morning, one asks oneself why do I bother. There is a little voice in the back of one's head that says keep going yet another voice says that one is mad so it is a matter of time. One must liaise with clients and emphasise that if one does not get a price increase then one must find alternative work or retire early. One must be open and transparent with clients and, hopefully, they will realise that they need local contractors because without local contractors farms will not be viable. There is a symbiotic relationship between everybody. Just like with the environment it is all symbiotic. We, as contractors, are at the forefront of the relationship with farmer clients. As Mr. Moroney mentioned earlier, we go back generations with farms. We worked with farmers' grandparents years ago and now we are working with their grandchildren. We have made a long-term investment in terms of time and careers with our partners who are farmers.

I thank the witnesses.

I welcome the FCI representatives. For the record, any opportunity that I have had at any of these meetings, whether it was with the Department or whoever else, I agree wholeheartedly that it is not possible to farm by calendar and we need to avail of scientific technologies. Local knowledge is a big part of this too. I come from a fairly northern part of the country and the further north one goes there is at least a month of a difference in climate and growth conditions between west Cork to the top of County Donegal. Therefore, drawing a circle around a date on a map in Brussels does not work, should not work and should not even be relied on. Anyone can see from the record that I have been consistent on this issue any time that we have had any of those meetings.

I wish to refer to the statement that the Department batted the formation of the FCI contractor register back to the organisation. Before then had there been much consultation? The FCI brought its register to the Department in May. Did the Department indicate then what recognition it would give the register or what role it would view it as having? Did the Department just treat the issue like it was a can to kick down the road? Will the Department recognise the register when the association puts it together?

It has been stated in the submission that the FCI would like to see farm contractors have a greater role in the recording of the spreading of slurry and farmyard or organic manure when it comes to the record of the farmer? I think that would be a massively beneficial move. Has the Department indicated that it would facilitate the association having a role in such work if and when the Department recognises the register?

Most of my questions on NAP and TAMS have been asked so I will not repeat them. I know that the brief today concerned NAP and TAMS but I have two questions on other issues. I ask the witnesses to comment on the current labour situation and how the members of the association are managing. We have heard that every sector has a scarcity or shortage of labour and that it is getting harder to secure good and appropriately qualified labour or employees.

My next issue relates to the many meetings that we have had on forestry and, again, this issue is outside of NAP and TAMS. We get a dashboard every month so on paper there is an improvement in the number of licensing applications and the ones that are being turned around. Have the forestry members of the association seen an improvement in terms of extra demand for afforestation, felling or roads? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Have FCI members said the licensing situation has improved a small bit or is it just on paper?

Mr. Michael Moroney

The Department has not confirmed whether the register will be recognised or not but that will not deter us from putting a register together and trying to raise standards within the sector. We have continued to make representations to the Department on this point over the last four years and will continue to do so. It is an important objective for us and it is important that we raise standards and have an identifiable way of doing so. We will continue to work on that until we have something successful in place. That should not be too far away as we have a good deal of work done on that.

I will pass over to Mr. Hughes, our chairman, to answer on labour. He is quite close to dealing with that question.

Mr. John Hughes

Yes, labour is an issue. It has been an issue for the last decade, probably, but it has come to the point where the pot has almost boiled dry and there is no water left in it. What are we going to do? I do not know. Are we to rely on minors, and I use the word advisedly, those under 18 years, to drive very expensive tractors at what are sometimes dangerous speeds on the road? They have not got proper training. Training for tractor drivers is an issue for everybody. They think they are God almighty and they are Michael Schumacher on the road. Maybe nature takes over but that is the way it is. We try to deal with the issue we have. When people are stuck they have to find somebody to drive the tractor. Otherwise they have to tell their clients that they have no one to drive the tractor and they will cut the silage whenever they can get to it. At the moment, there are many farmers ringing up contractors with their TAMS-granted tankers sitting in the yard and they have no one to drive their own tractor in their own yard to pump their own slurry and bring it out in the fields. They are contacting the contractors to do it. Those contractors already have existing clients in the books who they booked in weeks ago and they are over-loaded with work. They just cannot get it done. It goes back to a point raised earlier. Labour is an issue and will continue to be an issue.

Mr. Michael Moroney

To add to that, back in 2019 labour was becoming an issue. We identified it as an issue that we would have to deal with and which would become more important in our sector. We did apply to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to get a seasonal visa particularly for tractor operators. We suggested that because we know from a lot of experience that at this time of year, during the winter period, that quite large numbers of young people from Ireland go to New Zealand to operate silage equipment in particular. Many of contractors' sons or people who are contracting during their formative years, went to New Zealand and operated machinery. We cannot provide them with a reciprocal agreement here which is very unfortunate. We did apply to get specialist visas from New Zealand, Australia and South Africa because the seasonal workload would suit. Many of the same machines are being used. Many Irish-built machines are being used both in the southern hemisphere and here at home. The seasonal nature would have allowed New Zealand drivers to come here for our summer, which is their winter, and for us to have our drivers go to New Zealand for their harvesting period. That made a lot of sense. The pandemic and so on came along and that affected it and there were some constraints around Irish people going to New Zealand because it became a very closed economy because of Covid. However, longer term, we have applied for visas to allow operators in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa in particular where the equipment is equivalent, the people are English speaking and have an agricultural economy quite similar to ours. Therefore, the transition from driving in New Zealand or Australia would not be that difficult so as to come here. Some of our counterparts in Europe, particularly Germany, Holland and Belgium, have engaged with operators from further eastern Europe, with countries such as Bulgaria and Romania, but they have had significant problems with regard to understanding of machines. The level of technology was not present for them there and there was also a language problem going onto farms. None of those problems would arise if we had drivers on a seasonal visa. If a driver comes to us from New Zealand for one season they cannot come back on a visa for a second season. We believe that is a ridiculous situation. There is a real opportunity because of the seasonality of much of our work and in the southern hemisphere. It makes so much sense. Irish farm machinery companies are testing machines with Irish people in New Zealand to have them available for the world market. We should use the same logic and strategy. We have applied to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine on this. For us to get a visa, the process is highly complicated and is simply not affordable in the current circumstances. We would love to have some support from the committee to move that on further.

Is there any feedback from the contractors on whether things are improving in the forestry sector?

Mr. Michael Moroney

I am sorry but I omitted to answer that question. Generally, they are improving. There is one significant thing evident from dashboard which we get a copy of each week. There has been an increase in the level of harvesting but there has not been a proportionate increase in the level of afforestation. That is a concern because if we do not plant trees we cannot harvest them.

I will give Deputy Danny Healy-Rae ten minutes.

I will not need ten minutes. I thank the Chair. I welcome Mr. Moroney and his colleagues representing the farm and forestry contractors. I can identify with everything that has been said here. I have been a contractor and have been a farmer, and I am still, and have been all my life. I started out with a Ferguson 135, cutting hay with a finger bar mower all around the parish, then going on to get a wonderful machine - a rotary mower - and so forth. I made forestry roads. They were endless roads. I know what it is all about, what is required and the tough work that it is. There has been a lot of talk about costs of repairs and replacing parts. I understand that. The availability of parts is an awful problem for everyone at the moment, especially since Brexit. Brexit has created an increased difficulty in sourcing parts for everyone in the plant hire business, whether they are farmers or contractors. There is also the cost of diesel and the increased cost of tyres, hydraulic oil and plastic. All those things have gone up. We have to ensure that the farmer can keep going because if they cannot the contractors will not be on the road either. Myself and others have made representations on the cost of fertiliser today. It is a very serious matter because if it is not addressed it will affect everyone on the road and everyone who has a wheel, whether it is a tractor, lorry or whatever other kind of equipment.

I support the call that they would be able to access TAMS grants but I do not concur with the idea that farmers should not be getting the grants. There was a lot of talk about tractors being parked in yards and no one to drive them. We all know how hard it is to get a contractor to do the work on the day that you want to do it. For that reason, I have kept a certain amount of equipment so that I can cut my silage on the day that I want to cut it. In Kerry, it is very hard to get contractors. They will not all come on the day it is dry and you may finish up when it is pouring rain, which is of no use, as the witnesses know.

I would not like farmers to be deprived of the right to get a TAMS grant as well as contractors. I support contractors getting the grant. The difficulty, however, which I know the Chairman understands, is that the cost of machinery has gone greatly recently but the TAMS grants have not followed in kind. We need to address that issue. The Government and the Department need to address it to ensure the grants go up in line with the cost of machinery. This was pointed out to me by a farmer the other day. He bought a slurry spreader and trailing shoe or whatever it was about a year and a half ago for €30,000. The same machine now costs €42,000 in the cheapest place he could get it. The grant needs to go up accordingly because costs have gone up.

I welcome the attendance of our guests. I understand what they go through and every nut and bolt they have to deal with, as well as all the problems they have. If we do not keep replacing and repairing machinery, all we will finish up with is a heap of it inside in the yard and the only thing it will be good for is to send to Hammond Lane. I know the trouble contractors have keeping their equipment up to date. I was glad to hear our guests talking about modern equipment for monitoring the spreading of fertiliser and all that. I wish them well. I support their request to be included in the TAMS grant but the way I was brought up is that you should not try to put other people down while putting yourself up. I am asking them again to desist from suggesting that farmers should not get grants for their equipment and everything will be fine after that.

I do not think there were any questions in there.

There were not, but I wanted to get my point in. I have to go to another meeting now. I thank the witnesses.

Mr. Michael Moroney

May I respond? There is no question of only contractors getting grants. There must be parity and fairness. If farmers can get grant aid for machines, then contractors should be able to get it too. We are not about excluding anybody. We are talking about a level playing field.

As there are no other members wishing to contribute, I thank our guests from the FCI for attending the meeting and making their presentation to the committee. It was a worthwhile presentation. I may not agree 100% with everything they said today but what I agree with fundamentally is that the farming sector cannot survive without contractors. We need a viable contract service. It is more important now than it ever was. I fully support that. The committee will keep in correspondence with the FCI. If it has points it wishes to make, this forum is open to it. We have had a very good exchange of views. Our guests made a very good presentation that outlined the problems facing their sector, which are very difficult, it must be admitted. Although rising costs are affecting farmers, they will also have a serious impact on contractors. There are labour shortages. I refer to the need to embrace modern technology and the benefit of such technology in the reduction of emissions, which is a target to which the industry has to face up to. There is a need to use all that modern technology to that end. I accept there are significant benefits to be had from embracing it. Members have made the point that some of the machinery that is needed cannot just be on an individual farm basis. It may be that a contractor can afford such machinery and could work for a cohort of farmers. I thank our guests for their presentation. That concludes our proceedings for today. Does Mr. Hughes wish to comment?

Mr. John Hughes

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to present to him and his colleagues. We look forward to a future invitation to provide any additional information they may require. After all, we are at the coalface of the industry, as are farmers. We can and will respond as and when required, provided we get the support to keep us in tractors in fields doing the work to get Ireland into a position where we can be proud of our agricultural industry, environment and environmental targets.

The next meeting of the committee will be a private meeting at 1.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 2 February 2022. The Select Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine will meet in public session at 5.30 p.m. on that date, when the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy McConalogue, will appear before the committee to discuss the Estimates for 2022 for his Department. As there is no further business, the meeting now stands adjourned.

The joint committee adjourned at 7.26 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 9 February 2022.
Barr
Roinn